Archive for the ‘The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Bloom's Taxonomy.’ Category

Wonderful Visual Featuring the three versions of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Saturday, July 26th, 2014

I have been sharing several visuals on Bloom’s Taxonomy over the last couple of years but I  never came across a graphic that captures the essence of the three versions of Bloom’s taxonomy as the one below. Actually, Bloom’s taxonomy comes only into two versions, the original which was created by a  committee of educators chaired by  Benjamin Bloom sometime in the 1950s of last century. During the 1990s another group of educators and cognitive psychologists led by Lorin Anderson ( a former student of Bloom) updated the original version to make it convenient with the learning needs of the 21st century. I first heard about digital Bloom’s taxonomy from the works of Andrew Churches and since then several other scholars have written about it. For more resources on Bloom’s Taxonomy, please visit this page.

Source of this graphic:

blooms taxonomy

Read more @

A New Wonderful Bloom’s Taxonomy Visual for Teachers.

Saturday, July 26th, 2014

Today while I was sifting through my Twitter feeds I came across this wonderful new visual on Bloom’s Taxonomy shared by Mindshift. This visual is created by Mia MacMeekin whose work has ben been featured in this blog in several instances in the past. As you can see below, the infographic outlines a set of various action verbs that align with each of Bloom’s thinking levels. These verbs could be used by teachers as a way to design classroom activities and assignments that target different Bloom’s thinking levels. I am inviting you to have a look at this new graphic and share with your colleagues.

bloom verbs

by Mia Mac Meekin.

Read more @

Alternative Psychomotor Domain Taxonomy Versions

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Harrow’s interpretation of the Psychomotor domain is strongly biased towards the development of physical fitness, dexterity and agility, and control of the physical ‘body’, to a considerable level of expertise. As such the Harrow model is more appropriate to the development of young children’s bodily movement, skills, and expressive movement than, say, the development of a corporate trainee’s keyboard skills. By the same token, the Harrow model would be perhaps more useful for the development of adult public speaking or artistic performance skills than Dave’s or Simpson’s, because the Harrow model focuses on the translation of physical and bodily activity into meaningful expression. The Harrow model is the only one of the three Psychomotor Domain versions which specifically implies emotional influence on others within the most expert level of bodily control, which to me makes it rather special.

As ever, choose the framework that best fits your situation, and the needs and aims of the trainees or students.

psychomotor domain (harrow)
level category or ‘level’ description examples of activity or demonstration and evidence to be measured ‘key words’ (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)
1 Reflex Movement involuntary reaction respond physically instinctively react, respond
2 Basic Fundamental Movements basic simple movement alter position, move, perform simple action grasp, walk, stand, throw
3 Perceptual Abilities basic response use than one ability in response to different sensory perceptions catch, write, explore, distinguish using senses
4 Physical Abilities fitness develop strength, endurance, agility, control endure, maintain, repeat, increase, improve, exceed
5 Skilled Movements complex operations execute and adapt advanced, integrated movements drive, build, juggle, play a musical instrument, craft
6 Non-discursive Communication meaningfully expressive activity or output activity expresses meaningful interpretation express and convey feeling and meaning through movement and actions

Adapted and simplified representation of Harrow’s Psychomotor Domain (1972). (Non-discursive means intuitively direct and well expressed.)

Read more @

Bloom’s Taxonomy – Psychomotor Domain – (physical – skills – ‘do’)

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

The Psychomotor Domain was ostensibly established to address skills development relating to manual tasks and physical movement, however it also concerns and covers modern day business and social skills such as communications and operation IT equipment, for example telephone and keyboard skills, or public speaking. Thus, ‘motor’ skills extend beyond the originally traditionally imagined manual and physical skills, so always consider using this domain, even if you think your environment is covered adequately by the Cognitive and Affective Domains. Whatever the training situation, it is likely that the Psychomotor Domain is significant. The Dave version of the Psychomotor Domain is featured most prominently here because in my view it is the most relevant and helpful for work- and life-related development, although the Psychomotor Domains suggested by Simpson and Harrow are more relevant and helpful for certain types of adult training and development, as well as the teaching and development of young people and children, so do explore them all. Each has its uses and advantages.

Dave’s Psychomotor Domain Taxomony:

psychomotor domain (dave)
level category or ‘level’ behaviour descriptions examples of activity or demonstration and evidence to be measured ‘key words’ (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)
1 Imitation copy action of another; observe and replicate watch teacher or trainer and repeat action, process or activity copy, follow, replicate, repeat, adhere
2 Manipulation reproduce activity from instruction or memory carry out task from written or verbal instruction re-create, build, perform, execute, implement
3 Precision execute skill reliably, independent of help perform a task or activity with expertise and to high quality without assistance or instruction; able to demonstrate an activity to other learners demonstrate, complete, show, perfect, calibrate, control,
4 Articulation adapt and integrate expertise to satisfy a non-standard objective relate and combine associated activities to develop methods to meet varying, novel requirements construct, solve, combine, coordinate, integrate, adapt, develop, formulate, modify, master
5 Naturalization automated, unconscious mastery of activity and related skills at strategic level define aim, approach and strategy for use of activities to meet strategic need design, specify, manage, invent, project-manage

Based on RH Dave’s version of the Psychomotor Domain (‘Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives’, 1970. The theory was first presented at a Berlin conference 1967, hence you may see Dave’s model attributed to 1967 or 1970).

Read more @

Alternative Psychomotor Domain Taxonomy Versions

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

A.  Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain Taxonomy:

Elizabeth Simpson’s interpretation of the Psychomotor domain differs from Dave’s chiefly because it contains extra two levels prior to the initial imitation or copy stage. Arguably for certain situations, Simpson’s first two levels, ‘Perception’ and ‘Set’ stage are assumed or incorporated within Dave’s first ‘Imitation’ level, assuming that you are dealing with fit and healthy people (probably adults rather than young children), and that ‘getting ready’ or ‘preparing oneself’ is part of the routine to be taught, learned or measured. If not, then the more comprehensive Simpson version might help ensure that these two prerequisites for physical task development are checked and covered. As such, the Simpson model or the Harrow version is probably preferable than the Dave model for the development of young children.

psychomotor domain (simpson)
level category or ‘level’ description examples of activity or demonstration and evidence to be measured ‘key words’ (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)
1 Perception awareness use and/or selection of senses to absorb data for guiding movement recognise, distinguish, notice, touch , hear, feel, etc
2 Set readiness mental, physical or emotional preparation before experience or task arrange, prepare, get set
3 Guided Response attempt imitate or follow instruction, trial and error imitate, copy, follow, try
4 Mechanism basic proficiency competently respond to stimulus for action make, perform, shape, complete
5 Complex Overt Response expert proficiency execute a complex process with expertise coordinate, fix, demonstrate
6 Adaptation adaptable proficiency alter response to reliably meet varying challenges adjust, integrate, solve
7 Origination creative proficiency develop and execute new integrated responses and activities design, formulate, modify, re-design, trouble-shoot

Adapted and simplified representation of Simpson’s Psychomotor Domain (‘The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain’, 1972). Elizabeth Simpson seems actually to have first presented her Psychomotor Domain interpretation in 1966 in the Illinois Journal of Home Economics. Hence you may see the theory attributed to either 1966 or 1972.

Read more @

Bloom’s Taxonomy – Affective Domain – (feeling, emotions – attitude – ‘feel’)

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

The Affective Domain provides a framework for teaching, training, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of training and lesson design and delivery, and also the retention by and affect upon the learner or trainee.

affective domain
level category or ‘level’ behaviour descriptions examples of experience, or demonstration and evidence to be measured ‘key words’ (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)
1 Receive open to experience, willing to hear listen to teacher or trainer, take interest in session or learning experience, take notes, turn up, make time for learning experience, participate passively ask, listen, focus, attend, take part, discuss, acknowledge, hear, be open to, retain, follow, concentrate, read, do, feel
2 Respond react and participate actively participate actively in group discussion, active participation in activity, interest in outcomes, enthusiasm for action, question and probe ideas, suggest interpretation react, respond, seek clarification, interpret, clarify, provide other references and examples, contribute, question, present, cite, become animated or excited, help team, write, perform
3 Value attach values and express personal opinions decide worth and relevance of ideas, experiences; accept or commit to particular stance or action argue, challenge, debate, refute, confront, justify, persuade, criticise,
4 Organise or Conceptualize values reconcile internal conflicts; develop value system qualify and quantify personal views, state personal position and reasons, state beliefs build, develop, formulate, defend, modify, relate, prioritise, reconcile, contrast, arrange, compare
5 Internalize or characterise values adopt belief system and philosophy self-reliant; behave consistently with personal value set act, display, influence, solve, practice,

Based on the ‘Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Volume 2, The Affective Domain’ (Bloom, Masia, Krathwohl) 1964. See also ‘Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain’ (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl) 1956. This table is adapted and reproduced with permission from Allyn & Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of ‘Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives’ (Bloom et al 1956).

This domain for some people can be a little trickier to understand than the others. The differences between the levels, especially between 3, 4, and 5, are subtle, and not so clear as the separations elsewhere in the Taxonomy.

Read more @

Bloom’s taxonomy – cognitive domain

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Bloom’s Taxonomy – cognitive domain (Intellect – Knowledge – “think”)

Bloom’s Taxonomy 1956 Cognitive Domain is as follows. An adjusted model was produced by Anderson and Krathwhol in 2001 in which the levels five and six (synthesis and evaluation) were inverted (reference: Anderson & Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 2001). This is why you will see different versions of this Cognitive Domain model. Debate continues as to the order of levels five and six, which is interesting given that Bloom’s Taxonomy states that the levels must be mastered in order.

In my humble opinion it’s possible to argue either case (Synthesis then Evaluation, or vice-versa) depending on the circumstances and the precise criteria stated or represented in the levels concerned, plus the extent of ‘creative thinking’ and ’strategic authority’ attributed to or expected at the ‘Synthesis’ level. In short – pick the order which suits your situation.

cognitive domain
level category or ‘level’ behaviour descriptions examples of activity to be trained, or demonstration and evidence to be measured ‘key words’ (verbs which describe the activity to be trained or measured at each level)
1 Knowledge recall or recognise information multiple-choice test, recount facts or statistics, recall a process, rules, definitions; quote law or procedure arrange, define, describe, label, list, memorise, recognise, relate, reproduce, select, state
2 Comprehension understand meaning, re-state data in one’s own words, interpret, extrapolate, translate explain or interpret meaning from a given scenario or statement, suggest treatment, reaction or solution to given problem, create examples or metaphors explain, reiterate, reword, critique, classify, summarise, illustrate, translate, review, report, discuss, re-write, estimate, interpret, theorise, paraphrase, reference, example
3 Application use or apply knowledge, put theory into practice, use knowledge in response to real circumstances put a theory into practical effect, demonstrate, solve a problem, manage an activity use, apply, discover, manage, execute, solve, produce, implement, construct, change, prepare, conduct, perform, react, respond, role-play
4 Analysis interpret elements, organizational principles, structure, construction, internal relationships; quality, reliability of individual components identify constituent parts and functions of a process or concept, or de-construct a methodology or process, making qualitative assessment of elements, relationships, values and effects; measure requirements or needs analyse, break down, catalogue, compare, quantify, measure, test, examine, experiment, relate, graph, diagram, plot, extrapolate, value, divide
5 Synthesis (create/build) develop new unique structures, systems, models, approaches, ideas; creative thinking, operations develop plans or procedures, design solutions, integrate methods, resources, ideas, parts; create teams or new approaches, write protocols or contingencies develop, plan, build, create, design, organise, revise, formulate, propose, establish, assemble, integrate, re-arrange, modify
6 Evaluation assess effectiveness of whole concepts, in relation to values, outputs, efficacy, viability; critical thinking, strategic comparison and review; judgement relating to external criteria review strategic options or plans in terms of efficacy, return on investment or cost-effectiveness, practicability; assess sustainability; perform a SWOT analysis in relation to alternatives; produce a financial justification for a proposition or venture, calculate the effects of a plan or strategy; perform a detailed and costed risk analysis with recommendations and justifications review, justify, assess, present a case for, defend, report on, investigate, direct, appraise, argue, project-manage

Based on the ‘Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1, The Cognitive Domain’ (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl) 1956. This table is adapted and reproduced with permission from Allyn & Bacon, Boston USA, being the publishers and copyright owners of ‘Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives’ (Bloom et al 1956).

Note that levels 5 and 6, Synthesis and Evaluation, were subsequently inverted by Anderson and Krathwhol in 2001.

In my view, the question of the order of Synthesis and Evaluation is dependent upon the extent of strategic expectation and authority that is built into each, which depends on your situation. Hence it is possible to make a case for Bloom’s original order shown above, or Anderson and Krathwhol’s version of 2001 (which simply inverts levels 5 and 6).

The above version is the original, and according to the examples and assumptions presented in the above matrix, is perfectly appropriate and logical. I also personally believe the above order to be appropriate for corporate and industrial training and development if ‘Evaluation’ is taken to represent executive or strategic assessment and decision-making, which is effectively at the pinnacle of the corporate intellect-set.

I believe inversion of Synthesis and Evaluation carries a risk unless it is properly qualified. This is because the highest skill level absolutely must involve strategic evaluation; effective management – especially of large activities or organisations – relies on strategic evaluation. And clearly, strategic evaluation, is by implication included in the ‘Evaluation’ category.

I would also argue that in order to evaluate properly and strategically, we need first to have learned and experienced the execution of the strategies (ie, to have completed the synthesis step) that we intend to evaluate.

However, you should feel free to invert levels 5 and 6 if warranted by your own particular circumstances, particularly if your interpretation of ‘Evaluation’ is non-strategic, and not linked to decision-making. Changing the order of the levels is warranted if local circumstances alter the degree of difficulty. Remember, the taxonomy is based in the premise that the degree of difficulty increases through the levels – people need to learn to walk before they can run – it’s that simple. So, if your situation causes ‘Synthesis’ to be more challenging than ‘Evaluation’, then change the order of the levels accordingly (ie., invert 5 and 6 like Anderson and Krathwhol did), so that you train people in the correct order.

Read more @

Bloom’s Taxonomy Overview

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Here’s a really simple adapted ‘at-a-glance’ representation of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The definitions are intended to be simple modern day language, to assist explanation and understanding. This simple overview can help you (and others) to understand and explain the taxonomy. Refer back to it when considering and getting to grips with the detailed structures – this overview helps to clarify and distinguish the levels.

Cognitive Affective Psychomotor
knowledge attitude skills
1. Recall data 1. Receive (awareness) 1. Imitation (copy)
2. Understand 2. Respond (react) 2. Manipulation (follow instructions)
3. Apply (use) 3. Value (understand and act) 3. Develop Precision
4. Analyse (structure/elements) 4. Organise personal value system 4. Articulation (combine, integrate related skills)
5. Synthesize (create/build) 5. Internalize value system (adopt behaviour) 5. Naturalization (automate, become expert)
6. Evaluate (assess, judge in relational terms)

(Detail of Bloom’s Taxonomy Domains: ‘Cognitive Domain – ‘Affective Domain – ‘Psychomotor Domain’) Bloom’s Taxonomy in more detailed structure follows, with more formal terminology and definitions. Refer back to the Bloom Taxonomy overview any time you need to refresh or clarify your perception of the model. It is normal to find that the extra detail can initially cloud the basic structure – which is actually quite simple – so it’s helpful to keep the simple overview to hand.

Read more @

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

This is a revised version of Benjamin Bloom’s work with the addition of the Psychomotor Domain as developed by Anita Harrow [1972]. Dr. Bloom’s intent was to develop a classification framework for writing educational objectives. The questions and examples were added by Tom Allen to make the Taxonomy more useful for beginning teachers as a tool to facilitate appropriate questioning.

Cognitive Domain:

  1. Knowledge: recognize or recall information. Q: What is the capital of Maine? Who wrote “Hamlet? “Words typically used: define, recall, recognize, remember, who, what, where, when.
  2. Comprehension: demonstrate that the student has sufficient understanding to organize and arrange material mentally. Q: What do you think Hamlet meant when he said, “to be or not to be, that is the question?” (Rosenshine, among others, would argue that one of the best ways to teach is to teach pupils how to ask their own questions about the topic under consideration.) Words typically used: describe, compare, contrast, rephrase, put in your own words, explain the main idea.
  3. Application: a question that asks a student to apply previously learned information to reach an answer. Solving math word problems is an example.Q: According to our definition of socialism, which of the following nations would be considered to be socialist? Words typically used: apply, classify, use, choose, employ,write and example, solve, how many, which, what is.
  4. Analysis: higher order questions that require students to think critically and in depth. [Unless students can be brought to the higher levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, it is unlikely that transfer will take place, i.e., this is stuff I can use rather than this is just more dumb school stuff that I can forget after I take the test. If teachers don't ask higher level questions, it is unlikely that most students will transfer school work to real life. They may not even be able to apply it to school situations other than the one in which it was "learned." E.g., we "know" that students know more than scores on the CAP Test or SAT would suggest.] In analysis questions, students are asked to engage in three kinds of cognitive processes:
    1. identify the motives, reasons, and/or causes for a specific occurrence (Q: Why was Israel selected as the site for the Jewish nation?),
    2. consider and analyze available information to reach a conclusion, inference, or generalization based on this information (Q: After studying the French, American, and Russian revolutions, what can you conclude about the causes of a revolution?), or
    3. Words typically used: identify motives/causes, draw conclusions, determine evidence, support, analyze, why.
  5. Synthesis: higher order question that asks the student to perform original and creative thinking. Synthesis questions ask students to:
    1. produce original communications. (Q: What’s a good name for this invention? Write a letter to the editor on a social issue of concern to you. Make a collage of pictures and words that represents your beliefs and feelings about the issue.)
    2. make predictions. (Q: How would the U.S.A. be different if the South had won the Civil War? What would happen if school attendance was made optional? What is the next likely development in popular music?)
    3. solve problems–although analysis questions may also ask students to solve problems, synthesis questions differ because they don’t require a single correct answer but, instead allow a variety of creative answers. (How could we determine the number of pennies in a jar without counting them? How can we raise money for our ecology project?Words typically used in synthesis questions: predict, produce, write, design, develop, synthesize, construct, how can we improve, what would happen if, can you devise, how can we solve.
  6. Evaluation: a higher level question that does not have a single correct answer. It requires the student to judge the merit of an idea, a solution to a problem, or an aesthetic work. The student may also be asked to offer an opinion on an issue. (Q: Do you think schools are too easy? Is busing an appropriate remedy for desegregating schools? Do you think it is true that “Americans never had it so good?” Which U.S. senator is the most effective? To answer evaluation questions objective criteria or personal values must be applied. Some standard must be used. differing standards are quite acceptable and they naturally result in different answers. This type of question frequently is used to surface values or to cause students to realize that not everyone sees things the same way. It can be used to start a class discussion. It can also precede a follow-up analysis or synthesis question like, “Why?”

Affective Domain of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:

The Affective Domain addresses interests, attitudes, opinions, appreciations, values, and emotional sets.
The original purpose of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was to provide a tool for classifying instructional objectives. The Taxonomy is hierarchical (levels increase in difficulty/sophistication) and cumulative (each level builds on and subsumes the ones below). The levels, in addition to clarifying instructional objectives, may be used to provide a basis for questioning that ensures that students progress to the highest level of understanding. If the teaching purpose is to change attitudes/behavior rather than to transmit/process information, then the instruction should be structured to progress through the levels of the Affective Domain:

  1. Receiving. The student passively attends to particular phenomena or stimuli [classroom activities, textbook,music, etc. The teacher's concern is that the student's attention is focused. Intended outcomes include the pupil's awareness that a thing exists. Sample objectives: listens attentively, shows sensitivity to social problems. Behavioral terms: asks, chooses, identifies, locates, points to, sits erect, etc.
  2. Responding. The student actively participates. The pupil not only attends to the stimulus but reacts in some way. Objectives: completes homework, obeys rules, participates in class discussion, shows interest in subject, enjoys helping others, etc. Terms: answers, assists, complies, discusses, helps, performs, practices, presents, reads, reports, writes,etc.
  3. Valuing. The worth a student attaches to a particular object, phenomenon, or behavior. Ranges from acceptance to commitment (e.g., assumes responsibility for the functioning of a group). Attitudes and appreciation. Objectives: demonstrates belief in democratic processes, appreciates the role of science in daily life, shows concern for others' welfare, demonstrates a problem-solving approach, etc. Terms: differentiates, explains, initiates, justifies, proposes, shares, etc.
  4. Organization. Bringing together different values, resolving conflicts among them, and starting to build an internally consistent value system--comparing, relating and synthesizing values and developing a philosophy of life. Objectives: recognizes the need for balance between freedom and responsibility in a democracy, understands the role of systematic planning in solving problems, accepts responsibility for own behavior, etc. Terms: Arranges, combines, compares, generalizes, integrates, modifies, organizes, synthesizes, etc.
  5. Characterization by a Value or Value Complex. At this level, the person has held a value system that has controlled his behavior for a sufficiently long time that a characteristic "life style" has been developed. Behavior is pervasive, consistent and predictable. Objectives are concerned with personal, social, and emotional adjustment: displays self reliance in working independently, cooperates in group activities, maintains good health habits, etc.

Psychomotor Domain of Educational Objectives:

Instructional objectives and derived questions/tasks typically have cognitive/affective elements, but the focus is on motorskill development. The suggested areas for use are speech development, reading readiness, handwriting, and physical education. Other areas include manipulative skills required in business training [e.g., keyboarding], industrial technology, and performance areas in science, art and music. American education has tended to emphasize cognitive development at the expense of affective and psychomotor development. The well©rounded and fully functioning person needs development in all three domains. In the psychomotor domain, performance may take the place of questioning strategies in many cases.

  1. Reflex movements. Segmental, intersegmental, and suprasegmental reflexes.
  2. Basic-fundamental movements. Locomotor movements, nonlocomotor movements, manipulative movements.
  3. Perceptual abilities. Kinesthetic, visual, auditory and tactile discrimination and coordinated abilities.
  4. Physical abilities. Endurance, strength, flexibility, and agility.
  5. Skilled movements. Simple, compound, and complex adaptive skills.
  6. Nondiscursive communication. Expressive and interpretive movement.Sample general objectives: writes smoothly and legibly; accurately reproduces a picture, map, etc.; operates a [machine] skillfully; plays the piano skillfully; demonstrates correct swimming form; drives an automobile skillfully; creates a new way of performing [creative dance]; etc.Behavioral terms: assembles, builds, composes, fastens, grips, hammers, makes, manipulates, paints, sharpens, sketches, uses, etc.

Read more @

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

The taxonomy of Educational Objectives or Bloom’s Taxonomy, is a classification of the different objectives that educators set for students (learning objectives). The taxonomy was proposed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist at the University of Chicago.

Bloom’s Taxonomy divides educational objectives into three “domains” as follows:

  • Affective;
  • Psycho-motor;
  • Cognitive.

A goal of Bloom’s Taxonomy is to motivate educators to focus on all the three domains; creating a more holistic form of education. However, most references to the Bloom’s Taxonomy only notice the Cognitive domain.

1.  Affective domain:

Skills in the affective domain describe the way people react emotionally and their ability to feel another person’s pain or joy. Affective objectives typically target the awareness and growth in attitudes, emotion, and feelings. There are five levels in the affective domain moving through the lowest order process to the highest, as follows:

  • Receiving : The lowest level; the student passively pays attention. Without this level, no learning can occur.
  • Responding: The student actively participates in the learning process; not only attends to a stimulus; the students also reacts in some way.
  • Valuing: The student attaches a value to an object, phenomenon, or piece of information.
  • Organizing: The student can put together different values, information and ideas and accommodate them within his/her own schema; comparing; relating and elaborating on what has been learned.
  • Characterizing: The students holds a particular value or belief that now exerts influence on his/her behaviour so that it becomes a characteristic.

2. Psycho-motor domain:

Skills in the psycho-motor domain describe the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument like a handsaw or a hammer.

Psycho-motor objectives usually focus on changes and / or development in behaviour and / or skills. However Bloom and his colleagues never created sub-categories for skills in the psycho-motor domain.

3.  Cognitive domain:

Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around knowledge, comprehension, and “thinking through” a particular topic. Traditional education tends to emphasize the skills in this domain, particular the lower-order objectives.There are six levels in the taxonomy, moving through the lowest order process to the highest:

1.  Knowledge: Exhibit memory of previously learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers.

  • Learner objectives: To define, distinguish, acquire, identify, recall, or recognize various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit facts, conventions, categories in ways that enable learners to demonstrate knowledge.

2.  Comprehension: Demonstrative understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions and stating main ideas.

  • Learner objectives: To translate, transform, give in own words, illustrate, prepare, read, represent, change, rephrase, or restate various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit definitions, words, phrases, relationships, principles in ways that enable learners to demonstrate comprehension.

3.  Application: Using new knowledge, solve problems to new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way.

  • Learner objectives: To apply, generalize, relate, choose, develop, organize, use, transfer, restructure, or classify various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit principles, laws, conclusions in ways that enable learners to apply what they have learned.

4.  Analysis: Examine and break information into parts by identifying motive or causes; make inferences and find evidences to support generalizations.

  • Learners objectives: To distinguish, detect, identify, classify, discriminate, recognize, categorize, or deduce various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit elements, hypotheses, assumptions, statements of intent or fact in ways that encourage learners to critically analyze information.

5.  Synthesis: Compile information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions.

  • Learner objectives: To write, tell, relate, produce, originate, modify, or document various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit structures, patterns, designs, relations in ways that encourage learners to form new structures of knowledge.

6.  Evaluation: Present and defend opinions by making judgment about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria.

  • Learner objectives: To judge, argue, validate, assess, appraise various forms of information.
  • Teacher tasks: To present and / or elicit from learners different qualitative judgments.

Further Readings:

  • Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; pp. 201–207; B. S. Bloom (Ed.) Susan Fauer Company, Inc. 1956.
  • A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing — A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Lorin W. Anderson, David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths and Merlin C. Wittrock (Eds.) Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 2001
  • “Taxononmy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II: The affective domain; Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., Masia, B. B.; 1964.

Read more @ :

Teacher Development by R.F.  McNergney and C.A. Carrier, 1981, New York: Macmillan.